Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Not free, this version is copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 18:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
@Denniss: ...Back again....took ten years but here again. Not own work unambiguous copyright infringement This work is protected by Canadian Crown copyright. File is at File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg on Wikipedia withnNon-free media data. Any image so closely resembling this logo as to be likely to be confused with it would constitute a copyright and/or trademark [infringement under Canadian law. Legal protection of the official symbols of the Government of Canada— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 03:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep NOT "back again." Sodacan's works are their own, based upon the blazon, and have repeatedly passed the copyright test. Fry1989 eh? 14:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- The specific file seems to have been modified from the actual Canadian arms, the shapes are more or less perfect match. Further more the crest specifically is one to one with the Canadian governor general's badge: https://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/public-register/project/464 -- Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- One to one? Are you blind? I'm not trying to be rude, but there huge differences. The posture of the head is on an angle instead of 90*, the tail is entirely different, the claws, the tufts of fur on the legs, the maple leaf itself, the claw holding the maple leaf on Sodacan's drawing lacks a thumb which the GG's drawing has, Sodacan's drawing has a pizzle which the image on the GG's website lacks, the arch of the torse is significantly more pronounced on Sodacan's drawing, ... I can't take your objectivity seriously if you're really going to try and sell to us that Socadan's crest and the GG's badge from your link are "one to one." As for the rest of the work, there are again numerous differences which make it clear that this is an entirely new artistic work, not a copy, and not a simple modification. Fry1989 eh? 00:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Clearly the crest's head is still the exact copy when it comes to the shape. As for the rest, the helmet, motto scroll, the bodies of the supporters as well as the Irish harp are the exact same in shape as in the official arms. Whether or not this counts as copyright infriction, I don't know, I'm just sharing my thoughts on the matter. As Sodacan said below, the rendition of country symbols is an important issue as subpar emblazonments used in the project can cause various issues, so I do understand the rationale behind this file. However copyright issues are also a serious matter as we all know, and Creative Commons licensed files that may have been even partly copied from non-free ones shouldn't get a pass no matter how useful and needed the file might be in the project. -- Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Designs, logos or marks that are similar to, or that could be easily mistaken for, the official symbols are pursued by the Government of Canada as unauthorized use. That said commons has always had a problem with these like with File:Coat of Arms of Canada (1957).jpg its still copyrighted as it is still in use and registered every 10 years per Legal protection of the official symbols of the Government of Canada Moxy (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Terms like "exact copy" are not something to be thrown around lightly. I would again ask Fenn-O-maniC to take a far closer look. The parting of the tufts of the mane is different. Sodacan's mane parts (from left to right) in one, one, seven, two, one, and one. The GG's drawing parts in one, two, five, one, one, two, and one. The crown on the GG's drawing sits "atop" the head with the ermine unobstructed, but the crown on Sodacan's drawing sits "behind", the ermine obstructed by the ears and the curvature of the forehead. The cap on the GG's drawing reaches all the way to the arches of the crown, but the cap on Sodacan's drawing has a significant gap between the arches. The tongue and facial posture is similar, I will give you that much.
- Designs, logos or marks that are similar to, or that could be easily mistaken for, the official symbols are pursued by the Government of Canada as unauthorized use. That said commons has always had a problem with these like with File:Coat of Arms of Canada (1957).jpg its still copyrighted as it is still in use and registered every 10 years per Legal protection of the official symbols of the Government of Canada Moxy (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Clearly the crest's head is still the exact copy when it comes to the shape. As for the rest, the helmet, motto scroll, the bodies of the supporters as well as the Irish harp are the exact same in shape as in the official arms. Whether or not this counts as copyright infriction, I don't know, I'm just sharing my thoughts on the matter. As Sodacan said below, the rendition of country symbols is an important issue as subpar emblazonments used in the project can cause various issues, so I do understand the rationale behind this file. However copyright issues are also a serious matter as we all know, and Creative Commons licensed files that may have been even partly copied from non-free ones shouldn't get a pass no matter how useful and needed the file might be in the project. -- Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- One to one? Are you blind? I'm not trying to be rude, but there huge differences. The posture of the head is on an angle instead of 90*, the tail is entirely different, the claws, the tufts of fur on the legs, the maple leaf itself, the claw holding the maple leaf on Sodacan's drawing lacks a thumb which the GG's drawing has, Sodacan's drawing has a pizzle which the image on the GG's website lacks, the arch of the torse is significantly more pronounced on Sodacan's drawing, ... I can't take your objectivity seriously if you're really going to try and sell to us that Socadan's crest and the GG's badge from your link are "one to one." As for the rest of the work, there are again numerous differences which make it clear that this is an entirely new artistic work, not a copy, and not a simple modification. Fry1989 eh? 00:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- The specific file seems to have been modified from the actual Canadian arms, the shapes are more or less perfect match. Further more the crest specifically is one to one with the Canadian governor general's badge: https://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/public-register/project/464 -- Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- The wording of the Canadian copyright around the coat of arms is...tricky... but not clear-cut. What does "easily confused for" actually mean? Sodacan's file and Coat of arms of Canada are a thousand miles apart in artistic style. If you place them side-by-side absolutely no one would say they're the same thing. We should follow the precedent that independent works carry their own copyrights. Fry1989 eh? 14:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This is my own rendition of the arms of Canada and all of its elements were drawn by myself, based on the original. The project is in need of a version of the Arms, it is an important image and a faithful and good reproduction should be kept. I have contributed many files on Commons, motivated by a desire to provide all Wiki projects with good illustrations for its articles. I am not trying to infringe anybody's copyright. I took great care both to create my own drawings and be as respectful as possible to the version the Canadian government itself prefers. Any rendition, especially of national arms, should not be made from other images. This image will be useful and will help our project. Sodacan (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- First off, it's rather interesting to me that Commons seems to have an undiscussed de facto exception to policy which exempts the current main national flags of sovereign nations (they are never deleted, no matter what their copyright status)...
- However, with respect to this file specifically, in traditional European heraldry, the "blazon" textual description what is definitive. Any particular visual rendering is copyrightable, but any person can come along and make a new visual rendering on the basis of the blazon, and that person then has the copyright to the visual rendering which they made. If User:Moxy has some specific evidence that the traditional rules of heraldry do not apply in this specific situation, then by all means bring such evidence forward. Otherwise, the arguments for deletion are somewhat misconceived. In particular, demanding originality in heraldic art is rather questionable, since the same motifs have been endlessly recycled over and over by hundreds or thousands of artists for more than 7 centuries. Anything in heraldic art which was strikingly original would be calling attention to itself, and would take the focus off the coat of arms which was supposed to be the purpose of the image... AnonMoos (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- Already provided....that said will just have to move this to rendition I guess. Last thing we want is to deceive people about its nature. Moxy (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- You've provided info about the legal status of "corporate logo" type emblems. However the traditional rules for rendering of European-style blazon-defined coats of arms are quite a bit different from "corporate logo" copyright rules. I would need some definite positive information that the normal rules governing heraldry are suspended in this case, not just your assumptions from "corporate logo" type rules. AnonMoos (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- To me we are clearly in an interpretation of a Heraldic Blazon, so the copyright status should be good for Wikimedia Commons. I lean clearly toward Keep --PierreSelim (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- To me we are clearly in an interpretation of a Heraldic Blazon, so the copyright status should be good for Wikimedia Commons. I lean clearly toward
- You've provided info about the legal status of "corporate logo" type emblems. However the traditional rules for rendering of European-style blazon-defined coats of arms are quite a bit different from "corporate logo" copyright rules. I would need some definite positive information that the normal rules governing heraldry are suspended in this case, not just your assumptions from "corporate logo" type rules. AnonMoos (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep As per the comments of Sodacan, Fry1989, and AnonMoos. —VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Shall we move to close? Fry1989 eh? 14:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
